The living constitution theory believes that the constitution changes due to the politics of the times and interpretations are treated as legally powerful as the actual text which is why most proponents of the living constitution quote case law alone and never the actual words in the document. It allows the constitution to be distorted by the opinions of the justices on the bench thus changing it from what the creators of the actual law intended. The constitution clearly states that the only way it can be altered is by the amendment process which can be done three ways. Two of them are by the legislative branch of the federal government and the third is by a conventions of the states. These are the only constitutional ways you can alter constitution's meaing so when people believe that the courts can alter it by their 'interpretation' they are assuming that the courts have powers that the constitution does not give them. This makes living constitution theory unconstitutional since the meaning of the document can't be altered by the opinion of the courts. It can only be altered by the amendment process and that power is only granted to the legislative branch. They are the ones that create the law while the courts judge cases by what has been created by the legislative branch.